Below is my paradigm framework.

1. Demonstrate respect for your colleagues – this is a speech and debate competition, not an argument.

2.Speak in a tone and at a rate that are clearly understandable to the judge.

3. Deliver evidence in a logical, cohesive, and distinguishable manner.

4. For PF participants, crossfire and cross-analysis of the opposing team member(s) need to uphold, strengthen, and/or advance your position.

5. For PF participants, questions must be relevant, not superfluous. If you ask a question, give the opposing team member(s) time to reply and complete the response before asking another question or making a statement.

I coach PF Debate and have judged LD for 15+ years. I love to see professionalism, real logic in cases and rebuttals, impeccable speaking skills, and good time management. Please avoid barraging me with questions about my expertise before the round starts.

“Off-time road maps” serve no purpose. Framework and observations are not just for show; I weigh them throughout the round. Spreading does not belong in PF or LD, and I will not flow arguments that I cannot hear.

Good argumentation matters the most to me. I should hear incisive warrants to support all claims. Your impacts should be specific and resonate throughout your contentions. Good debaters achieve turns and can group arguments well.

In regard to PF:

Summary speeches should, above all, situate the round and extend the rebuttal.

Try not to turn the round into just an “evidence-off”. Know when to move on from a dispute over one piece of evidence.

In the Final Focus, you must weigh arguments with specificity and effective persuasion, but the focus should be on the holistic argument and impacts, not line-by-line analysis at that point.

I don't give long-winded verbal feedback at the end of rounds, but I try to give an abundance of ballot comments for your benefit.